Rehosted and hotlinked webcomics will be removed, unless you are the creator. Please submit a link to the original comic's site, and possibly a mirror in the comments. Tumblr-exclusive comics are the exception, and may be rehosted, however if the artist's name or watermark are removed, the post will be removed.

14. No SMS or social media content.

Any and all social media content is prohibited on this subreddit with the exception of Snapchat-captioned photos. This rule also applies to any reddit-related content. Please read the announcement.

Hate speech and bigotry will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Bots and bot-like accounts are not allowed

What do I do if I see a post that breaks the rules?

Click on the report button, and send us a message with a link to the comments of the post.

What should I do if I don't see my post in the new queue?

If your submission isn't showing up, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators

Hey man, you're getting downvoted but I wholly agree with you. It's quite stupid and adds nothing to the discussion. People upvote only because they get the reference, not because it contributes. It's the sad state of reddit.

Wait, are you literally being a dick to someone for posting a link in a manner you yourself did at one point before having a mod put your tail between your legs and now are acting like a total douche hat because of it?

And rather than inform them of the rule you yourself were ignorant to at one point, just being a complete asshole about it?

*alright, cool, just checking to see that someone considered relatively popular on this sub is actually a hypocrite and a dick who chose the cordial asshole approach to something he himself did at some point.

** and looks like squalor continues the practice of posting "illegally hosted shows" on subreddits not /r/funny, so he's in fact a bigger hypocrite than previously thought.

According to the World Health Organization, nymphomania is considered excessive sexual drive, which is a completely separate condition from excessive masturbation. If an individual was actually diagnosed as a "nympho" she would have to have had sex, not only once, but at a higher rate than normal. These conditions are diagnosed based on the actions or the subject, so by definition she isn't a nympho is she is a virgin. Also, if she was hypersexual what are the chances of her committing infidelity because he husband couldn't satisfy her? Very high.

I'll answer this with a question that hopefully point out the reasoning to you: Is it possible to want to have sex if you've never had it before? Yes. We are biologically wired to want to bone each other. If no one wanted sex without having had it before, our race would have died out.

All "excessive sexual drive" means is that you think about sex and are interested in doing it more than normal. That's it. Your sex drive isn't qualified by how much you managed to follow through in having it. That is a ridiculous idea.

"Hey honey, I'm really horny....let's do it".

"No, you aren't horny because the last time we had sex was 3 months ago. Obviously your sex drive isn't high enough because we almost never do it despite you asking me every night".

"Excessive" is a quantitative term. How is the woman in able to call herself a nymphomaniac? How does she know her sex drive is high compared to others? There would have to be some means to define what is normal and what is not. You can't determine how much a person thinks about sex to define it as excessive. Lets be realistic, no one is ever called a "nympho" because they "think about sex" too much.

Well, gee, what a brilliant fucking revelation. I guess no one can call themselves intelligent, artistic, short, tall, or any other descriptive state of being since it relies on the comparison to the average person. Next time I someone remarks at how tall I am I'll be sure to correct them because, let's be honest, there is absolutely no way to measure just how tall I am compared to the average person, right?

Or maybe you not be retarded and realize that it's possible to claim something without evidence. Does she need to know how strong the average person's sex drive is in order to be a nymphomaniac? No. She could say that she is and be wrong about how excessive hers is compared to the average person. Or she can be right. You see, the truth of her status as a nympho isn't relative to how knowledgeable she is of the average person's sex drive.

If you honestly think that there aren't ways to quantify someone's sex drive and calculate an average, you are a moron.

It doesn't matter how often someone is called a nympho because of thinking about sex too much. That is irrelevant in a discussion about what the word means. You said that a nympho can't be a virgin. Virgins can and usually do have a sex drive. It is possible to have a greater sex drive than average. It is possible to and has been calculated what the average person's sex drive is. You were proven wrong. Get over it.

Do you really think there is enough desire there to be considered a nymphomaniac when the person doesn't act on it? It is incredibly imprecise to claim that someone can have excessive thoughts about sex and not have a problem controlling it. It wouldn't be "excessive" it the thoughts were controllable.

Having a strong will power does not preclude one from having conditions like this. It would be damned hard to diagnose in such a person but that wouldn't mean it wasn't there.

Not to mention there is a question of circumstance. Theoretically, someone could be hideously ugly, with boils and warts everywhere, and still have the sex drive, yet remain a virgin. Mental illness simply cannot be defined strictly off of action alone. Some depressed people still go to parties and hang out with friends, are you actually saying that means they aren't REALLY depressed?

If they have to war in their own mind constantly with something, whether or not they win or lose that war is irrelevant to the existence of the mental disease. Even if it doesn't actually make them have sex, it certainly would still affect their behavior and their life.

You are technically correct in the clinical definition, but it is an extremely imprecise way of using the word. A recovering sex addict certainly may have the willpower to avoid having sex, just like a recovering heroin addict has the ability to refrain from using drugs, but you can't be a heroin addict if you haven't tried heroin. Honestly, if a girl walked up to you and said she was a nymphomaniac virgin, would you really believe her?

Nymphomania doesn't mean "sex addict". Comparing it to addiction just shows you don't understand that

You are the one misusing the word here. It means excessive sexual drive. Sex addiction is a very real, and very different problem. Often Nymphomania can lead to an addiction, but it is very possible to have either one without the other.

she wouldn't be a nympho if she hasn't had sex in that long. The condition is only determined on how much sex she actually has. If she hasn't had sex in year, that amount is considered far below even average and therefore she would not be considered hypersexual.

Heightened sex drive =/= heightened sexual activity or decreased morals. A year of mourning means she doesn't do anything to insult the memory of her late husband (such as sex with another man.) Nympho aren't mindless sex machines - they ARE capable of self control.

How would you be able to determine a whether a person's sexual drive was high without them having sex? Excessive masturbation is a completely different condition that may or may not be related(according to the World heath Organization).

Assuming the forest wasn't in a vacuum, yes, the potential energy the tree would have standing upright would be transferred to kinetic energy as it fell. This KE would be transferred into mechanical, heat and sound energy as the tree hit the ground.

Guess so... Still, I can't wrap my head around why anyone would choose a piece of animal skin over polyurethane or any of the other latex-replacements.

EDIT: Wikipedia also says that lambskin are the most expensive of alternatives. I really don't understand how anyone would consider them. How are they even tested? It's not like sheep-intestine is a homogenous material.

Being an organic material, they transmit heat and sensation moreso than synthetic materials. i.e. they make it feel like you're not wearing a condom. That's why people buy them. Also in the context of this post, it's probably implying that she wants to have sex without a condom at all.

Also could you tell us again how you thought they were a joke? Because I think some of us hadn't heard.

I thought lambskin condoms were a joke, It never crossed my mind they could be real. Viruses evolved to find a way to enter organic tissue, protecting yourself from such a virus by wearing another layer of tissue does not seem a particularly brilliant idea.

It might not be AS effective as latex condoms for a few edge cases but it is absolutely an alternative to latex. It still has the same pregnancy stop power which in general is the main focus of people buying condoms. If a disease is a big concern you probably shouldn't be fucking that person. And even if it is your concern, would you consider raw dog a safer alternative?

I am shocked that they are an actual product. I always thought they were a joke. Protecting yourself from a virus by wearing organic tissue, the stuff viruses evolved to enter and infect? No, that sounds perfectly sensible.

Even for that I would not trust them. How does one even test a product made from such non-homogenous material? Also, after looking this stuff up on wikipedia, I've learned that lambskin ones are even more expensive than other alternatives such as polyurethene. Beats me why anyone would choose that. Must be a hippie-thing.

remember that condoms as disease protection are what, 25 years old? since HIV became a known thing with Freddie Mercury and the movie "Philadelphia". Prior to that condoms were just birth control, and lambskin worked fine.

Or if you're married, and disease free, and just using them as birth control. . .

I was under the impression you use them in conjunction with latex condoms. They're not meant to prevent diseases and pregnancy, but rather to avoid direct contact between skin and latex. So if the dude is allergic to latex, he puts the lambskin on his penis before putting the latex condom over it, if the lady is allergic, he puts the latex on first, with the lambskin shielding her.

Source: When I was a sophomore in high school, my hand was itchy after a science lab, and I thought I might have an allergy to latex, so I learned what could be done about that before learning to talk to girls. Just in case.

It's trying too hard to be funny and ends up pretty stupid. I mean, some random woman wants to shag for a long time but with no condom? Hell naw. I don't know if I can trust you with your birth controls and if I can't wear a condom, well, guess it's not gunna happen.

me in this situation: "actually, i have a senior design project due, i have to get back to work, and i have a girlfriend besides, but theres plenty of other dudes walking around. good luck! oh, and do you have any triple A batteries? My graphing calculator is all out and i have an exam...."